Explainer: Why the U.S. Froze Nuclear—And Why the White House Now Wants to Break the Ice
Nuclear energy never disappeared—but regulatory, financial, and public concerns halted expansion. Now, with new technology and federal attention, it’s getting a second look.
If you grew up in the 1970s or early 1980s, you might remember a time when nuclear power felt like destiny. America was building plants fast. Politicians were calling it clean, limitless, and necessary. During the Nixon administration, the Atomic Energy Commission projected the U.S. would have 1,000 reactors by the year 2000.
That future never arrived.
A series of high-profile accidents, shifting public opinion, and political headwinds, essentially froze the nuclear industry in place. In the mid-1990s, nuclear power generated just over 20% of U.S. electricity—its highest-ever share. Nearly three decades later, that number remains nearly flat at 19%. At first glance, the lack of measurable decline might suggest stagnation. In reality, it reflects a deliberate decision to stop expanding the industry. Without that shift, national dependence on nuclear would almost certainly have grown.
So what happened?
How Two Accidents Reshaped Nuclear's Future
What led the U.S. to turn away from the very technology it once championed? The unraveling started in 1979, when a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant brought the risks of nuclear energy into sharp public view. The release of radioactive gas during the reactor malfunction at the Pennsylvania facility led to widespread panic.
The incident dominated headlines for weeks. Schools closed. Businesses shuttered. Roughly 140,000 people voluntarily evacuated the surrounding area—uncertain how serious the threat might be. In the end, exposure levels were minimal. But the psychological fallout was massive.
A few years later, the Chernobyl disaster reinforced those fears on a global scale. In 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Soviet Ukraine exploded during a late-night safety test, releasing massive amounts of radioactive material into the air. The disaster killed dozens of plant workers and first responders, forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 people, and left long-term health and environmental consequences that are still being studied.
In the aftermath, construction on new plants slowed dramatically. Safety regulations tightened. And public opposition made siting new facilities increasingly difficult. For many Americans, trust in nuclear energy never fully recovered.
What Makes Nuclear Risk So Unforgiving
Nuclear accidents are rare—but when they happen, the consequences can be catastrophic: widespread contaminatiothe thn, long-term health risks, and decades of cleanup.
Unlike smoke or fire, radiation is invisible. You can’t see it, smell it, or feel it—but in large enough doses, it can alter DNA, damage cells, and increase cancer risk over time. That fear—of an unseen, potentially lethal exposure—was amplified by confusing government messaging and relentless media coverage during past crises.
Beyond accidents, the long-term challenges remain. Radioactive waste stays hazardous for thousands of years and still lacks a permanent, globally accepted storage solution. And while modern safeguards have improved, the potential for nuclear proliferation adds another layer of geopolitical risk.
Nuclear power plants are generally considered safe and tightly regulated. But the stakes are uniquely high—enough to stall the industry for more than three decades.
Now, that may be changing.
A New Pitch for an Old Power A Second Look at First-Generation Power
A new wave of federal support—through funding, tax credits, and executive action—is reigniting debate over nuclear’s place in America’s energy future.
The White House is expected to issue a series of executive orders aimed at expanding the role of nuclear energy in the U.S. energy mix. As part of a broader push to boost domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign fuel sources, federal leaders are signaling renewed interest in nuclear—particularly through the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).
This isn’t a return to the nuclear boom of the 1970s—but it’s not a status quo strategy either.
Unlike traditional nuclear plants, SMRs are compact, factory-built reactors designed to be faster and cheaper to deploy. They require less land, carry new safety features, and can be scaled incrementally to meet local or regional energy demand. Supporters see them as a more flexible, modern form of nuclear power—one that could serve communities too small or remote for conventional reactors. They also promise the kind of reliable, carbon-free electricity that solar and wind can’t always guarantee.
But critics say the promise is still largely unproven. Most SMR designs have yet to be deployed at scale in the U.S., and some early projects have already run into cost overruns and delays—echoes of the very problems they were meant to solve. There are also concerns about waste management, security, and whether fast-tracking new technologies could outpace public oversight. To skeptics, SMRs aren’t a guaranteed breakthrough—they’re a high-tech bet still waiting for real-world results.
After decades on pause, nuclear energy is no longer just a relic of the past. It’s a live question about the future. Whether it delivers on its promise—or repeats old patterns—depends on what we choose to build next.
Positive Current is powered by FutureForce.
